EPA Promotes Worst Case, Scare Scenario

Unfortunately, the media, including industry magazines such as Power Magazine, have been reduced to parroting this administration’s line.

Power Magazine, for example, trumpeted the latest EPA report with an article titled:

“White House Warns Climate Change Inaction Could Result in Higher Power Demand and System Costs.”

However, a closer look at the latest EPA publication demonstrates the extreme bias of the EPA’s report, titled:

“CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE UNITED STATES”
“Benefits of Global of Action”

Power Magazine dutifully reported on the EPA’s claims as follows:

“Among its major findings are that global action now leads to greater benefits over time, that it would avoid costly damages in the U.S., and that in some sectors, adaption can substantially reduce the impacts of climate change.”

But, a cursory review of the EPA’s report establishes that the report parallels the worst case scenario published by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Here is the graph (Figure 1) taken directly from the EPA report attempting to establish the terrible consequences of not dramatically cutting CO2 emissions.

Chart from EPA Report

Note the red line is what the EPA claims will happen if CO2 emissions are not dramatically cut. The blue line depicts the temperature rise if CO2 emissions are dramatically cut.

These predictions are based on EPA’s computer models.

The EPA claims that temperatures in 2100 will be 10 degrees F higher in 2100 than today.

This is obviously an extreme projection, one even the IPCC doesn’t make.

Here is the IPCC projection for the year 2100. While it’s in centigrade rather than fahrenheit, it’s obvious the IPCC makes no claim that the extreme temperature used by the EPA is at all likely. The EPA’s claim of 10 degree F higher temperatures in 2100 equates to the upper limit of the A1F1 scenario, something the IPCC didn’t even bother to chart.

IPCC Graph of Temperature Rise by Scenario

The EPA is using outlandish projections, unsupported by science, in its attempt to scare people.

Unfortunately, the media, including publications such as Power Magazine, merely regurgitate the propaganda published by the EPA.

Unsurprisingly, the EPA report goes on to claim that there will be terrible consequences to health, water supply, droughts, rainfall, mortality rates and sea level rise if CO2 emissions aren’t dramatically cut.

Even the IPCC doesn’t make all these claims. For example, according to the latest IPCC report, sea level rise will be no greater than it has been over the past 100 years.

But the IPCC’s reports are also based on computer models that suffer from the same affliction as the EPA’s computer model, Garbage In, Garbage Out, (GIGO), the bane of all computer projections.

While the IPCC projects higher temperatures in the future from CO2 emissions, the models haven’t been able to predict reality.

IPCC Temperature Projections Compared with Observed Temperatures

This graph of IPCC model temperature projections through 2020, beginning with 1980, compares its projections with actually observed temperatures.

While all but the most conservative IPCC computer models show ever increasing temperatures, actual temperatures have remained steady and showed no warming over the past 18 years. No matter what caused this hiatus, the models didn’t predict it.

The IPCC models can’t predict reality.

Here is another graph of observed temperatures compared with IPCC temperatures from all 107 IPCC models at 97.5% and 95% confidence levels.

Temperature Charts by Michaels and Knappenberger, 2014

The colored dots are the observed temperatures from around the world from the Hadley temperature records. Virtually all the actual observed temperatures going back 30 years are below the 97.5% confidence level. In other words, the actual temperatures fall outside the range of predicted temperatures.

Going back approximately 60 years, all the observed temperatures are well below the average predicted by the IPCC models.

The only possible conclusion is that IPCC models fail to predict temperature.

The EPA not only uses models that can’t predict reality, they chose the most outlandish possibility on which to base their report that’s designed to scare people.

And the media doesn’t even question it.

The EPA is a propaganda organization par excellence.

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.